[Closed] Is steel real or is it hype?

yes!

no!

it depends...

(i don't think my blue pig is particularly flexy/twangy/magic, it [i]is[/i] very comfy, but that's probably mostly due to the big tyre i can fit in the back, probably...)

night and day? really?! I just went from a rockhopper to a genesis altitude 853, and felt no difference whatsoever... Perhaps doing something wrong but it's just no different.

ahh the myth that aluminium can not be comfortable & all steel bikes are

Aye... There's a little basis to it but people take it to extremes and try to ignore the obvious exceptions. Frinstance I had an older Scandal, and it rode more like the stereotypical perception of steel than the Inbreds I've ridden did- quite a soft and compliant ride, whereas the Bred was fairly solid and dare I say it muffled and dead feeling. And my C456 likewise is springier and softer than a gaspipe 456!

Some steel bikes do have the character people obsess about- your Souls, R8s etc. So I make a pretty gross oversimplification here, and say that lightweight steel bikes ride like people expect steel to ride. But heavier duty bikes- your 456s, BFes, Sovs- are pretty damn solid.

Then there's carbon, which tbh can be all things to all men, whippy as a fishing rod or solid as a telegraph pole.

Real

Its a rigid pushbike? It's hype. You don't see motorcycle chopper builders using reynolds tubing etc because its more "compliant." If you want a comfy hardtail get a fatter tyre. Your bike will become compliant straight away. If that doesn't work buy a full bouncer.

ah yes i can see the similarity between motorcycle and bicycle frame building 🙄

my steel bike is noodly as hell in a good way but i can see that just about any material came be made to flex or be stiff it's how it's used

yer ring. I bet you've got those fancy pneumatic tyres too? Its a push bike.

recently gone back to steel for my hardtail. amazing difference, haven't been back on the ally bike since. dont think i would buy another ally frame now

It does depend on the frames in question, but landing a jump or drop heavily is much less unpleasent on a steel bikes.

i went from at GT to a ragley blue pig and hated it, it felt very heavy and rode so different, i have gone back to my GT. for me it is all down to personnel riding style ETC.

Pete.

Steel is real, but not all aluminium frames are made equal, some have a similar feel to steel when designed that way. It's certainlystrain simple night and day difference between the two frame materials.

A well designed carbon frame is the best of both worlds.

My first steel bike original inbred was way nicer to ride then my slide drop out Inbred. The slide drop out Inbred was dead by comparison.

Then I got an unpainted, just varnished Summer Season 456. whilst it was better to ride than the SO Inbred it wasn't as nice as the original Inbred.

Steel is real but it just depends upon the frame build I guess.

My 853 Inbred was lush compared to the XTC hardtail I was also riding at the time.

I also still have a good steel road bike that is 'comfortable' compared to the other road bikes I have which are Ti and Carbon.

I came to the conclusion that steel is a lovely ride, but a little too heavy to race nowadays.

Its magnetic, so its real 🙂

Mine is nice blue, so it must be real and better.

You think an Inbred is comfortable???? Mine was a jackhammer compared to many bikes I've owned - I got rid, quick.

Cheap gas pipe steel is awful no matter who's brand it is. Good quality, expensive steel that's well made is "Real" and is MUCH more comfortable than the cheapo stuff.

Mind you, good quality, expensive carbon that's well made is "Real" too... and good quality, expensive Alu that's well made is "Real" too..

i.e. a well designed, well made frame that's made from high end materials will (usually) ride far better than an inexpensive frame that's made from dirt cheap materials (no matter how well that dirt cheap frame is made).

In my experience, going from a cheap aluminium hardtail to a cheap steel hardtail there was a massive difference. If I'd gone to an expensive aluminium or carbon hardtail then maybe the difference would've been massive too.

real - as long as its not cheap.

I've got an inbred and a scandal. The difference? The scandal is lighter.

Real. I've had four steel hardtails, and several aluminium ones. All were a bit different, and certainly one of the alloy bikes (a very nice Schwinn Moab) was plenty compliant, it felt like it had to be built too flexible to provide that. My trek was a rigid arse beater. I'm a big bloke but steel bikes just seem to be buildable in a way that gives the best of both worlds: comfy and zingy, yet not too twangy and fragile

I weigh almost 16 stone, and I find that helps make my alloy bikes flex like steel.

But my 853 SIR9 is incredibly noodly, you can set it up to sort of tank slap, by pushing the head tube one way, and then get the seat tube going the other. I won't do this when you ride, but it illustrates the flex. Out on the trail it has never done anything weird, it just shrugs off a hell of a lot of the bumps.

Good steel is real.

My inbred456 was stiff as hell not much difference between that and my old giant ali hardtail. My 853 kili flyer on the other hand is sublime. Depends as much on design than just material type.

Fire and wind come from the sky, from the gods of the sky, but Crom is your god. Crom, and he lives in the earth. Once giants lived in the earth, and in the darkness of chaos, they fooled Crom, and they took from him the enigma of steel. Crom was angered, and the earth shook, and fire and wind struck down these giants, and they threw their bodies into the waters. But in their rage, the gods forgot the secret of steel and left it on the battlefield, and we who found it. We are just men, not gods, not giants, just men. And the secret of steel has always carried with it a mystery. You must learn its riddle, you must learn its discipline, for no one, no one in this world can you trust, not men, not women, not beasts... This you can trust. [points to his steel hardtail]

aluminium is real ,just doesnt rhyme with anything.
😆

to be honest out of the bikes i have ridden some steel/aluminium/ and a carbon ht there is some difference,but not huge.they all are harsh compared to a full sus,but all of them were compliant also (i did notice the frames soaking up some of the trail buzz).saying that though my current bike is a charge duster which i love (it is skinny tubed tange prestige,so it does feel comfy for a ht 🙂

I have 3 Whyte 19's (Alloy, Alloy with carbon seat stays & Ti), I'm afraid I only got as far as picking up the Whyte 19 steel, it felt like it was made of solid pig iron. If "steel is real" = "weighs a ton" then I agree.

A steel frame only weighs a pound or so more so im not sure the difference is that noticable in a built up bike

[i]ah yes i can see the similarity between motorcycle and bicycle frame building

[/i]

I can, for both disciplines they engineer in 'compliance'. For example when a m/c is leaned over the forks aren't really able to work fully therefore the frame is made 'flexible' to reduce chatter.

I agree 100% with what Stan said up ^^^ there..

I bought a 456, it was great whilst it was new, then I realised that it was a bit of a tank..
I am currently experiencing the same 'new bike syndrome' with a soul, although the feeling isn't going away.. the geometry between the two is noticeably different though..

before these two steel frames I rode aluminium bikes, but seeing as I had never heard of STW I never really stopped to think about a bikes handling, I just rode it, and it was good

IMO steel is the ultimate compromise material - you would only buy it cos you can't afford carbon/Ti.
I have a 725 cx bike and it is very comfy. Would have preferred Ti though!!

my fat tubed, alu Pace rc303 was more "comfortable" than the steel frame I swapped all the bits to. It's almost as though there are other aspects than frame material to consider when looking at comfort...

For a start, the pace had a lot more seatpost showing.

The stiffest, harshest forks I've ridden were steel

None of my steel frames at present are particularly springy. Others I've owned have been.

frame material generalisations are stupid.

Al's your pal (when he's got a shock up him). Ti's fly and carbon's plastic fantastic.

Each have a benefit, which overlap into the other's properties. As for bump absorption, I'd rather put my faith in suspended Al than carbon. Although the Chromag chaps have shown you can bang a HT around Whistler quite comfortably, I like the margin of error I have. Your limbs and technique have a larger role to play in bike control than frame material, not to mention build choice.

As for a HT, I quite like the feel of steel. The skinny tubes look cool in a sea of hydroformed spaceship tubing too!

Steel is a fantastic material for building bikes, but with big tyres and 4-6" of suspension travel, aluminium does make sense.

If you want to see the difference between steel and ally, compare two fully rigid bikes.
I rode a fully rigid ally bike in 1992, and in a few years time my wrists may have finally recovered.

IMO steel is the ultimate compromise material - you would only buy it cos you can't afford carbon/Ti

So why am I thinking about spending 2 grand or more on a custom steel road frame?

[img]upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/65/PE-dontbelieve.jpg/220px-PE-dontbelieve.jpg[/img]

steel is just a material its not magic none of the other choices ate either, its more about what any given manufacturer does with it really.

TBH tyre pressure probably has a greater effect on general ride characteristicts for a bike than the frame material...h

I think the biggest difference you'll feel is in tyres,
Not to say steel doesn't have x and y but I find it difficult to feel any real difference.

The steel frames I've had are heavier than my ally ones so maybe they don't chuck me about so much.
To compare you'd have to have both frames built up exactly the same, and do a blind test. 🙂 hehe
I doubt most of us would be able to tell.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13072745

I've a steel hardtail.

S'nice.

Yes, it can be.
But there's so much variety. In both material properties- strength, stiffness- and cost.
You can get good and bad frames in all materials, and "good" can be different for different people's requirements. But with the other frame materials- aluminium alloys, Ti, and carbon fibre - the frame's variation in quality mostly comes from the frame's construction. The variation in material properties in the differnt alu alloys used in bike frames is not as large. They're a pretty even bunch. Likewise Ti.
But the variation in material properties between the low-end steel alloys used and the top end , like 853 and even 953 now, is much greater (cost too). Add in the build quality for the actual frames, and IMO, there can easily be as much variety between different steel frames as there is between steel and the other materials.

I'd pay money to see a blind test on a bike.

"little to the left, straighten up a bit...mind that tree!".

Grips and seat post can be just as important as tyre pressures, when it comes to percieved all day comfort.
Swap a carbon/lightweight alloy post for a Thomson and the difference (to me) is much greater than a difference in frame material.

I say this having ridden both Easton alloy & 853 Rock Lobsers over the past 6 years - same geometry & designer.

Which do I prefer?
In all seriousness, it depends on how knackered I am on the day & the number of gates and stiles on the route, tbh.

To compare you'd have to have both frames built up exactly the same, and do a blind test. hehe
I doubt most of us would be able to tell.

Honestly, if you were used to them you'd be able to tell in a second - Ms S has the alloy bike and just by the way it accelerates and responds to pedelling you can tell it's the stiffer alloy one.
But as I say, that's six years of familiarity.

I recently broke my 456 frame and decided to stick with steel. I looked at the Pipedream Siruis, a Blue Pig X and finally settled on a Kinesis Decade Virsa II.

I wanted a replaceable mech hanger and a more compliant frame.

The 456 and the Virsa are chalk and cheese! The Virsa is lighter and rides so much better than the 456. The 456 always felt harsh at the back and made an average XC night ride around the Winchester hills a bit of a sore arse type of ride. The Virsa seems much more compliant, no sore arse in the first dozen rides!

In terms of handling I think the Virsa has the edge, it's a more XCish type of handling but it's just very confidence inspiring and I'm chucking it into tight corners with ease.

All in all I think steel is a fantastic frame material, I've had steel, carbon, ti and alui frames in the past and the Virsa is by far the best overall.

I had one of the original chumba hx1 alu hardtails which was massively stiff and uncomfortable after a couple of hours. I then bought the mk2 version and transplanted everything, the only change was the fork csu as the new model has a tapered headtube. The geometry was the same, it was still alu etc but it had different tube profiles.

The difference was noticeable from the word go, it was like chalk and cheese - much comfier and could now be ridden all day without feeling battered...

Now in order, everyone recite after me...

Geometry > Tube diameter > Material

which translates as:

Handling > Rigidity > Weight

Steel needs thicker tubes and is heavier, aluminium larger diameter tubing, so can be more rigid. Titanum has the best of both, and carbon can be anywhere on the spectrum. Geometry is above everything else.

And I have Steel road and MTB, Ti road and am planning on a carbon HT.

djaustin - Member

...Steel needs thicker tubes...

thicker walls?

My Niner SIR9 feels nice. Inbred with exactly the same build was harsher. Its quite flexy though.

Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't really tell the difference between riding alu and steel

I feel happier and more comfortable on a steel bike. I'm not sure why that is. When it comes to buying a new one it'll be steel. I don't care that much about weight as I am not a serious cyclist. I like the simple clean aesthetics of a steel bike. and I know if I crash it it can be bent back!

Try riding a proper steel frame and not a luddite scaffolding pole frame OP. Youll be in heaven

Those that cannot tell the difference after say three hours are the ones flaunting words like 'perceived' differences.

I can assure you that if you do any serious biking you'll know. I'll give you an over simplistic physics activity you could try.

Whack a metal bar on a rock and then try the same thing with aluminium. Let me know how your hand fairs after repeated blows. Assuming you can still type.

I've had an Inbred. It was alright. I'd probably describe it as distinctly average in its 'magic'. My current Evil Sov. is the same material but an absolute brick by comparison. My mid-90s Kona, also the same material, is a bit of a (very tasty) noodle in comparison with either. So... if you can compare different frames made of the same material, then you probably can't make sweeping statements about the awesomeness of one material over another, right?

b r - Member

I can, for both disciplines they engineer in 'compliance'. For example when a m/c is leaned over the forks aren't really able to work fully therefore the frame is made 'flexible' to reduce chatter.

Totally different levels of force at play though.

colande - Member

To compare you'd have to have both frames built up exactly the same, and do a blind test. hehe I doubt most of us would be able to tell.

A blind test would be interesting... But other'n that, what you describe is exactly what happens when you replace a frame. Old kit goes on new frame.

thicker walls?

I found my Inbred to possess none of the ride qualities of steel: to me it was basically dead, flat and although a good fit (nice long ETT) it was pretty dull.
Same kit on a Scandal seems to possess none of the qualities of aluminium: to me it feels compliant and forgiving without any sacrifice on power transfer and handling... If someone told me it was a very expensive Ti frame I'd believe them.

Not a dissimilar experience to Northwind I guess.

Still reckon geometry and frame design are way more 'noticeable' than material.

The placebo effect is great, it's shown in drug trials that placebos can have a greater affect than the drug being trialled.

I think the danger is that old kit on new frame, you can quickly forget how the old bike rode.
I definitely call on stw to do blind bike test of same frame built in ally and steel.
Come on stw i think that's a feature we'd all like to see.
Every one starts shouting
“blind bike test"
"Blind bike test"
Hehe 🙂

colande - Member

I think the danger is that old kit on new frame, you can quickly forget how the old bike rode

Sure... But with big black and white differences that's not really a problem. I went Soul- Mmmbop- C456. Sold the Mmmbop specifically because it was as stiff as a stiff thing. Went to the C456 which has other vices but the difference in the rear end couldn't have been much more obvious. And one of the reasons I couldn't abide the Bop was that I'd had the Soul and knew hardtails don't have to feel like that.

Went from a Cove Handjob to Ragley Blue Pig and fell back in love riding a hardtail.both steel but feel totally different.

Good steel frames are not only thinner diameter but thinner walled than aluminium ones.

I always find it interesting how people translate lateral flex (which is something you can quite easily feel the difference in between different frames) as vertical compliance (which is so small in even a "flexible" hardtail that you can't).

Went from a Cove Handjob to Ragley Blue Pig and fell back in love riding a hardtail.both steel but feel totally different.

They are both HT’s? WHY did they feel different (both being steel)?

Radial stiffness, lateral rigidity / less resistance to flexure ... and all that journo balls. Look, steel reacts better to trail nastiness - and that’s that.

frame material generalisations are stupid.

This.